As part of my graduate studies, I had the opportunity to review my school's technology plan as described in detail below.
Planning for Technology
Missy Bragg
Due Date: 6-9-08
Technology Review: Canton Country Day School Introduction
Although CCDS does not follow the exact set-up provided and suggested by eTech and Dan Farslow (representing E-rate), the technology plan contained similar, as well as additional, sections relevant to a private school: School Description and Demographics, Mission and Goals, Professional Development, Critical Considerations, Recommendations, Implementation and Timeline, Budget, and Evaluation.
School Description
CCDS is an independent, co-educational, non-profit elementary school for grades Pre-K-8. As a private organization, it is important to remember that the school falls into a competitive market. The technology plan itself is not presented to teachers, parents, etc. in an open method, because this may give our competitors an edge in their future planning.
With that said, reviewing the current technology plan in regards to Ohio standards and eTech was very interesting. As a school, we (teachers and administrators) keep Ohio standards in mind, but are not required to implement them or to take the state standardized tests. More frequently we look to ISACS, Independent School Association of Central States, for guidance and expectations or other local private school organizations. Basic technology standards for students and teachers from ISACS can be viewed at: http://www.isacs.org/resources/monographs/library.asp?id=389&category=19&action=show
Being given access to our school technology plan for 2008-2011 was a unique opportunity for me. With personal interests in technology, I am involved in many of the ongoing technology integrations and have discussed possibilities for the future, yet had never seen the actual outline of future goals and implementation ideas. Providing educators in the building with at least the current technology goals, especially specific annual goals, would allow proactive seekers of educational professional development to prepare for future technology integrations. For example, teachers could seek training in the understanding Web 2.0 technologies and their uses in the curriculum, if they knew these expectations were part of the school’s future technology goals. Another reason providing teachers with the technology goals is so that the technology plan doesn’t become “just a piece of paper on a shelf,” as stated by Lynn Ochs. The idea of having a catchy phrase related to the goals would be a possibility at our school. Instead of openly sharing the plan, the teachers could be introduced to a new slogan or saying that represents the hopes of future technology uses within the school. This could be made into a sign, mouse pad, or even mug as suggested on the module.
Development and Planning for Technology
The technology plan was developed primarily by our school Technology Director, with ongoing input from the Head of School. This setup is the exact opposite of what the state recommends for the development of a technology plan that will actually be implemented. As stated in the module provided by eTech, plans tend to relate more to stakeholders if they are involved in developing the vision statement in a committee setting. We have available stakeholders who could be involved in our technology planning but this could create issues with maintaining confidentiality from current competitors.
Another issue with including stakeholders in a private school is that members of the committee who are paying constituents have to be dealt with cautiously. If a committee member has a longtime history with the school and is a frequent giver of donations, this can all affect how their ideas and beliefs are handled by others, especially administrators or financial advisors who know our non-profit organization can only survive with consistent annual giving. This goes along with the point made by Lynn Ochs that having the technology director facilitate the committee can also lead to bias in opinion because they already have a vision and goals in mind for the school. Some technology directors may be able to remove themselves from the situation but it is difficult to request a parent or Board Member (who is possibly a parent or alumni) to keep this same frame of mind.
On the other hand, I can understand the benefits provided in forming a planning committee and presenting it to the community. From the perspective of a larger school system, having a committee is the best method for people from different schools to build a relationship with the plan and later help with implementation in their own school. I especially like the idea of seeking a student’s vision as part of the planning, which would provide an insight that is commonly overlooked and important to the future success of technology in the classroom.
Overall, I believe our school has a strong foundation of technology and planning which is consistently implemented and reevaluated throughout each year, due to the importance of technology in today’s classroom and the affects this has on our largest stakeholders, paying parents and their children. Though we do not have a formal planning committee, we do have what we call a “Race Horse” committee of teachers and administrators from throughout building who regularly meet and explore current and possible technologies to later aid other teachers in the uses of new software and hardware. This type of committee best fits the current needs of CCDS as a private school setting.
REFLECTION
Reflecting back on my review of the school's technology plan, there is a particular realization that stands out to me. The teachers are not made aware of the school's ongoing technology plan devised by the administration. I know some of this is because the budget set by the school for technology is not public knowledge to the teachers. With tight salaries and minimal classroom budgets in a non-profit school, the administration does not want to have to continuously justify expenditures on technology. I do believe though that as a teacher, it would benefit me to know the ongoing and upcoming goals of the school in regards to technology to help meet these goals in my classroom and prepare myself for the integration of new technologies.
Planning for Technology
Missy Bragg
Due Date: 6-9-08
Technology Review: Canton Country Day School
Introduction
Although CCDS does not follow the exact set-up provided and suggested by eTech and Dan Farslow (representing E-rate), the technology plan contained similar, as well as additional, sections relevant to a private school: School Description and Demographics, Mission and Goals, Professional Development, Critical Considerations, Recommendations, Implementation and Timeline, Budget, and Evaluation.
School Description
CCDS is an independent, co-educational, non-profit elementary school for grades Pre-K-8. As a private organization, it is important to remember that the school falls into a competitive market. The technology plan itself is not presented to teachers, parents, etc. in an open method, because this may give our competitors an edge in their future planning.
With that said, reviewing the current technology plan in regards to Ohio standards and eTech was very interesting. As a school, we (teachers and administrators) keep Ohio standards in mind, but are not required to implement them or to take the state standardized tests. More frequently we look to ISACS, Independent School Association of Central States, for guidance and expectations or other local private school organizations. Basic technology standards for students and teachers from ISACS can be viewed at: http://www.isacs.org/resources/monographs/library.asp?id=389&category=19&action=show
Being given access to our school technology plan for 2008-2011 was a unique opportunity for me. With personal interests in technology, I am involved in many of the ongoing technology integrations and have discussed possibilities for the future, yet had never seen the actual outline of future goals and implementation ideas. Providing educators in the building with at least the current technology goals, especially specific annual goals, would allow proactive seekers of educational professional development to prepare for future technology integrations. For example, teachers could seek training in the understanding Web 2.0 technologies and their uses in the curriculum, if they knew these expectations were part of the school’s future technology goals. Another reason providing teachers with the technology goals is so that the technology plan doesn’t become “just a piece of paper on a shelf,” as stated by Lynn Ochs. The idea of having a catchy phrase related to the goals would be a possibility at our school. Instead of openly sharing the plan, the teachers could be introduced to a new slogan or saying that represents the hopes of future technology uses within the school. This could be made into a sign, mouse pad, or even mug as suggested on the module.
Development and Planning for Technology
The technology plan was developed primarily by our school Technology Director, with ongoing input from the Head of School. This setup is the exact opposite of what the state recommends for the development of a technology plan that will actually be implemented. As stated in the module provided by eTech, plans tend to relate more to stakeholders if they are involved in developing the vision statement in a committee setting. We have available stakeholders who could be involved in our technology planning but this could create issues with maintaining confidentiality from current competitors.
Another issue with including stakeholders in a private school is that members of the committee who are paying constituents have to be dealt with cautiously. If a committee member has a longtime history with the school and is a frequent giver of donations, this can all affect how their ideas and beliefs are handled by others, especially administrators or financial advisors who know our non-profit organization can only survive with consistent annual giving. This goes along with the point made by Lynn Ochs that having the technology director facilitate the committee can also lead to bias in opinion because they already have a vision and goals in mind for the school. Some technology directors may be able to remove themselves from the situation but it is difficult to request a parent or Board Member (who is possibly a parent or alumni) to keep this same frame of mind.
On the other hand, I can understand the benefits provided in forming a planning committee and presenting it to the community. From the perspective of a larger school system, having a committee is the best method for people from different schools to build a relationship with the plan and later help with implementation in their own school. I especially like the idea of seeking a student’s vision as part of the planning, which would provide an insight that is commonly overlooked and important to the future success of technology in the classroom.
Overall, I believe our school has a strong foundation of technology and planning which is consistently implemented and reevaluated throughout each year, due to the importance of technology in today’s classroom and the affects this has on our largest stakeholders, paying parents and their children. Though we do not have a formal planning committee, we do have what we call a “Race Horse” committee of teachers and administrators from throughout building who regularly meet and explore current and possible technologies to later aid other teachers in the uses of new software and hardware. This type of committee best fits the current needs of CCDS as a private school setting.
Below is the hardcopy of my review:
REFLECTION
Reflecting back on my review of the school's technology plan, there is a particular realization that stands out to me. The teachers are not made aware of the school's ongoing technology plan devised by the administration. I know some of this is because the budget set by the school for technology is not public knowledge to the teachers. With tight salaries and minimal classroom budgets in a non-profit school, the administration does not want to have to continuously justify expenditures on technology. I do believe though that as a teacher, it would benefit me to know the ongoing and upcoming goals of the school in regards to technology to help meet these goals in my classroom and prepare myself for the integration of new technologies.